10 comments:

Well I don't know... At least in theory, Martinez DID NOT defend violent criminals. In theory what Martinez did, was participate in a process to determine whether they were, or were not, violent criminals.

You cannot attack Martinez in this fashion without attacking the whole concept of a criminal justice system.

On the other hand, the criminal "Justice System" is in reality nothing but a tool of the ruling class, and there is no justice in it, so you might as well fire away...

I've been confounded by this for a while now. To think that those who have had their lives torn apart by violence, would then identify more with the criminals that perpetuate this violence, rather than the citizens trying to prevent the violence is astounding to me. I have since found a very thought provoking video out there that, to me, hits the mark. I was stunned by the psychological implications here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqVoeT5jzIM

The video is part of sci-fi narrative the author was engaged in at the time, which takes place in the latter 21st century (after the opposition has taken over), but the 45 minute narrative about the r/K psychologies is presented very well. It begins at the 5:20 mark and continues for about 45 minutes. Enjoy.Or, if you prefer the entire story...

From my reading around the 'Net, I think a lot of people are misunderstanding the "Situational Hypocrisy" exhibited. Defending "violent criminals" is not the hypocrisy; it is an essential element of what is purported to be a fair justice system: presumed innocence.

Everyone has the right to an effective defense. Probably even especially those "everyone knows is guilty"; after all, once you make an exception for one of "them" to get an easy, well-deserved conviction, it's easy to keep moving the bar to convict those... not so obviously guilty. Like... innocents.*

So Richard Martinez's hypocrisy is not that he defended "violent criminals" only to speak out against "violent criminals" only when he and his became victims. The hypocrisy is that he insisted on presumed innocence and due process for his clients, but demands preemptive assumptions of criminality on the part of millions of gun owners who haven't even been accused.

It may sound like nitpicking to some, but I think it's an important distinction. YMMV.

----------* This is why I'm annoyed by bashing, conducted by some alleged conservatives, of criminal defense by political opponents. Ghu knows, there's plenty of real reasons to detest and oppose Hillary, without attacking her for -- for once in her hideous life -- apparently upholding the system that supposedly protects us. You might even ask yourself: "If these people oppose presumed innocence and defending the accused now, who might they target when they are in power?"

I once met an actual, honest-to-goodness "ethical attorney" (you know? the exception that proves the rule?). The man made his living OTHER attorneys for malpractice. (Of course he had to do it away from San Antonio; something about "fouling one's own nest) but he made a good enough living at it.

Anyhow, he told me he couldn't be a criminal defense attorney because he knew that if he did he'd be disbarred after his first case. Seems he knew that, if the moke he was defending admitted to him that he had committed whatever crime he was accused of, the first time he and his client were in court he would have an utterly irresistible urge to jump up, point to his client and yell "Nail him, your Honor! Throw the book at him! He's guilty as sin!". And then he'd be disbarred. So this guy did something else.

He didn't like business law (saw no reason to spend all his time making rich fat-cats richer by defrauding regular folk plus see the above and imagine it in a civil court) couldn't do tax law (hated paying taxes and actually believed in the golden rule) so he sued crooked attorneys for malpractice.

Paul X, there is no justice because the word "justice" is a semantic null. It is impossible to construct a rigorous, precise, objective definition of the word. Since the word "justice" cannot be defined, it is impossible to obtain it because it is impossible to hit a target that is not defined - PLUS even if you hit the target, how would you know? So "justice" is a semantic null; an empty, meaningless sound.

Add it that you seek this semantic null in GOVERNMENT courthouse, in a GOVERNMENT courtroom, before a GOVERNMENT Judge, prosecuted by GOVERNMENT lawyers (who effectively have no more scruples than restraints on their efforts to convict you), heard by regular citizens who were summoned by the GOVERNMENTand finally you are defended by another lawyer licensed by

. . .

(wait for it)

. . .

(you guessed it)

. . .

THE GOVERNMENT!!!!!!!!!!

They ought to have a special door for criminal defendants to enter a courthouse. Over that door - carved in the most adamantine stone available - is the inscription ABANDON HOPE ALL YE WHO ENTER HERE."

Bear,"Presumed Innocence" is as much a myth and illusion as "democratic process", "rule of law" or that marvelous fairy tale that our votes count.

It ain't happening now and I'm not convinced it EVER DID!!!! There are so many laws now that NOBODY, ANYWHERE is truly "innocent". You may not be guilty of the specific offense for which the GOVERNMENT is prosecuting you, but are inarguably guilty of SOMETHING!

Do a quick search of the ties between both the National Lawyers Guild AND the National BAR Assoc. and communism and you will get some interesting info..Twice it is mentioned in the Constitution that no one in Govt is to have a "title of nobility", yet lawyers infest Govt and use the title "Esquire" after their name.("Esquire" is one rank below "knight"). There was even a 13th amendment forbidding titles of nobility and it strangely disappeared around the time of the war between the states and the present day 13th forbidding slavery and involuntary servitude (but not voluntary servitude)was put in it's place...Whenever you hire a lawyer, the court considers you an "incompetent" and as such you are now a "ward of the court" (basically an imbecile)..No lawyer will ever tell you that if arrested, you are being tried in a court that is under an Admiralty/Maritime/Equity jurisdiction (hence the gold fringe around the flag in the courtroom); not Common-Law which is your right under the 7th amendment. I could go on about this stuff all day. Learning the fiction imposed on us by the "legal" profession is important. The website "National Liberty Alliance" teaches how to get through this minefield...My point to all this is, lawyers are an underhanded bunch; many of whom have an agenda. I would exercise extreme care before giving my trust to any...

"Progress made under the shadow of the policeman's club is false progress."

I believe that liberty is the only genuinely valuable thing that men have invented, at least in the field of government, in a thousand years. I believe that it is better to be free than to be not free, even when the former is dangerous and the latter safe. I believe that the finest qualities of man can flourish only in free air – that progress made under the shadow of the policeman's club is false progress, and of no permanent value. I believe that any man who takes the liberty of another into his keeping is bound to become a tyrant, and that any man who yields up his liberty, in however slight the measure, is bound to become a slave. -- H.L. Mencken

On the efficacy of passive resistance in the face of the collectivist beast. . .

Had the Japanese got as far as India, Gandhi's theories of "passive resistance" would have floated down the Ganges River with his bayoneted, beheaded carcass. -- Mike Vanderboegh.

In the future . . .

When the histories are written, “National Rifle Association” will be cross-referenced with “Judenrat.” -- Mike Vanderboegh to Sebastian at "Snowflakes in Hell"

"Smash the bloody mirror."

If you find yourself through the looking glass, where the verities of the world you knew and loved no longer apply, there is only one thing to do. Knock the Red Queen on her ass, turn around, and smash the bloody mirror. -- Mike Vanderboegh

From Kurt Hoffman over at Armed and Safe.

"I believe that being despised by the despicable is as good as being admired by the admirable."

From long experience myself, I can only say, "You betcha."

"Only cowards dare cringe."

The fears of man are many. He fears the shadow of death and the closed doors of the future. He is afraid for his friends and for his sons and of the specter of tomorrow. All his life's journey he walks in the lonely corridors of his controlled fears, if he is a man. For only fools will strut, and only cowards dare cringe. -- James Warner Bellah, "Spanish Man's Grave" in Reveille, Curtis Publishing, 1947.

"We fight an enemy that never sleeps."

"As our enemies work bit by bit to deconstruct, we must work bit by bit to REconstruct. Be mindful where we should be. Set goals. We fight an enemy that never sleeps. We must learn to sleep less." -- Mike H. at What McAuliffe Said

"The Fate of Unborn Millions. . ."

"The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves; whether they are to have any property they can call their own; whether their Houses, and Farms, are to be pillaged and destroyed, and they consigned to a State of Wretchedness from which no human efforts will probably deliver them. The fate of unborn Millions will now depend, under God, on the Courage and Conduct of this army-Our cruel and unrelenting Enemy leaves us no choice but a brave resistance, or the most abject submission; that is all we can expect-We have therefore to resolve to conquer or die." -- George Washington to his troops before the Battle of Long Island.

"We will not go gently . . ."

This is no small thing, to restore a republic after it has fallen into corruption. I have studied history for years and I cannot recall it ever happening. It may be that our task is impossible. Yet, if we do not try then how will we know it can't be done? And if we do not try, it most certainly won't be done. The Founders' Republic, and the larger war for western civilization, will be lost.

But I tell you this: We will not go gently into that bloody collectivist good night. Indeed, we will make with our defiance such a sound as ALL history from that day forward will be forced to note, even if they despise us in the writing of it.

And when we are gone, the scattered, free survivors hiding in the ruins of our once-great republic will sing of our deeds in forbidden songs, tending the flickering flame of individual liberty until it bursts forth again, as it must, generations later. We will live forever, like the Spartans at Thermopylae, in sacred memory.

-- Mike Vanderboegh, The Lessons of Mumbai:Death Cults, the "Socialism of Imbeciles" and Refusing to Submit, 1 December 2008

"A common language of resistance . . ."

"Colonial rebellions throughout the modern world have been acts of shared political imagination. Unless unhappy people develop the capacity to trust other unhappy people, protest remains a local affair easily silenced by traditional authority. Usually, however, a moment arrives when large numbers of men and women realize for the first time that they enjoy the support of strangers, ordinary people much like themselves who happen to live in distant places and whom under normal circumstances they would never meet. It is an intoxicating discovery. A common language of resistance suddenly opens to those who are most vulnerable to painful retribution the possibility of creating a new community. As the conviction of solidarity grows, parochial issues and aspirations merge imperceptibly with a compelling national agenda which only a short time before may have been the dream of only a few. For many Americans colonists this moment occurred late in the spring of 1774." -- T.H. Breen, The Marketplace of Revolution: How Consumer Politics Shaped American Independence, Oxford University Press, 2004, p.1.